APP strategy analysis: should we make a small program or a big portal?

(one)

Many of today’s Internet products are actually portals, and each button of the product is under an independent APP.

For example, WeChat follows this logic: in addition to social networking , the payment, Didi , official accounts , micro malls, etc. can all be separated into a new APP, but these APPs use WeChat's unified traffic entrance .

In fact, the same is true for portal websites: under portal traffic, there needs to be corresponding application expansion, such as blogs, sports, stocks, and even live broadcasts , so as to build a three-dimensional product demand satisfaction system and greatly enhance user stickiness and competitiveness.

So, for players in the industry, there are only two strategies to deal with the problem . One is to create a new traffic entrance; the other is to bundle it with the existing traffic entrance (such as mini-programs , interface redevelopment, etc.).

The risk of the second strategy is that if the existing platform closes the interface, the user entrance will have to be rebuilt. The advantage is that it is easy to acquire "potential" users, and users do not need to install a separate APP to use it.

The first strategy is difficult, but very tempting. This strategy is generally implemented through a single point outbreak. For example:

• WeChat achieved a single-point explosion through the “circle of acquaintances” and acquired a huge user base beyond QQ’s stranger social networking;
• The platform-based short video sharing has surpassed the limitations of WeChat’s “social networking among acquaintances”, triggering a “single-point explosion” effect and quickly acquiring a large number of users;
• Similarly, the same is true for food ordering apps (such as Ele.me ), which capture the demand for food ordering from a large number of office workers and explode at a single point - and then, based on this user base, expand into more applications, such as online shopping malls, games , etc.

Therefore, it can be predicted that the future of mobile APPs will be like this: a major reshuffle of traffic entrances, coupled with a variety of unique brand products .

For example, if I want to listen to music, there may be a good platform at the entrance of WeChat. At this time, as long as I install WeChat on my mobile phone, I can switch to the state of listening to music - perhaps this is also a strategic core of WeChat's future resource integration.

The principle is just like Apple ( App Store ), which is to create an open platform with unlimited connectivity and expansion .

Another situation is that there is an APP that provides the ultimate music experience, which is simply unmatched by the mini-programs under WeChat. Therefore, it is so popular that users are willing to install and open another APP . Of course, the prerequisite is that this music APP has not been taken over by the traffic entrance (capital).

(two)

OK, back to the topic: So, what kind of demand points are suitable as traffic diversion interfaces, and what kind of demand points are suitable for applications under traffic?

First consider the situation where it is suitable to be a drainage interface:

(1) High frequency of use (i.e., frequency of occurrence of user needs)

For example, social needs:

• If it is contact with classmates (alumni network), the frequency may be calculated on a monthly basis;
• If it is a romantic relationship, the frequency of use will fluctuate greatly depending on the relevant events;
• If you are sharing interesting things and showing your happiness every day, the frequency may be calculated on a weekly basis;
• If you are curious about the lives of acquaintances ( circle of friends ), then the frequency is that it happens during your free time every day.

(2) Daily needs

The reason is simple: daily needs will occur at least once a day, so in terms of traffic, each active user will use it at least once a day, so it is suitable to create a traffic interface.

For example, if your APP has 10 million active users, if it is a daily application, then it will have at least 10 million user traffic every day - based on this traffic, the connected applications will have a potential traffic usage guarantee.

As for WeChat, which we are all familiar with, its usage demand is mostly for " killing time in leisure time " (short-term fragments, direct and convenient functions), which shows how big this traffic interface is.

Of course, functions such as mobile phone payment under the interface will bring stable usage to the traffic platform at least every month. From this perspective, the traffic platform and its downstream applications have a symbiotic relationship of mutual support.

When multiple downstream applications form a better three-dimensional "user demand" satisfaction model , it is equivalent to building a huge "one-stop" ecological network.

Therefore, products that do not meet the above requirements are not suitable for traffic interfaces.

For example, 360 Security Guard, Cheetah Clean Master and music software, the user demand frequency of these products is generally in weeks, so they are not suitable for downstream applications (such as games, shopping malls).

It has to be said that in order to increase user stickiness, Cheetah Clean launched the function of bundling the mall and WeChat, which is "adding fuel to the fire" - because the demand for using a mobile phone cleaning APP is very clear: clean up the garbage and leave after use.

So, how to improve the commercial value of the product itself? I think Fu Sheng can refer to the business model of his former employer 360: within the same ecosystem, create other "independent products" instead of making the tool product itself very big.

Zhou Hongyi said that 360 Antivirus has not made any money yet, but 360 as a whole is profitable. That's right.

Based on the above, 360's browser is suitable as a traffic entrance, such as linking to web games - but it lacks a better demand conversion : how to convert the demand from browsing the web to the demand of "playing games"?

Therefore, 360 came up with a “lottery wheel” countermeasure. But unfortunately, the lucky draw did not show sincerity, which disappointed many users and was a big failure! This story tells us again: either don't do it, or show sincerity.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that it is not suitable to be a traffic interface. Generally speaking, user needs are very "direct and straightforward" ; therefore, if too many irrelevant things are added, it will reduce the user's psychological assessment of the "professionalism" of the product.

In other words, to meet infrequent, non-routine "unique needs", it is necessary to make the product itself more "direct and straightforward", dig deep into the experience, and strengthen the "intuitive connection" between user needs and the product .

Of course, if your product greatly meets the needs of users, then putting a few small advertisements or recommending products in the same ecosystem should be acceptable as long as they are not too ugly.

This article was compiled and published by @何为贵you (Qinggua Media). Please indicate the author information and source when reprinting!

Product promotion services: APP promotion services Advertising